Explore in-depth analysis
On Point is a judicial analysis blog written by members of the Wisconsin State Public Defenders. It includes cases from the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, Supreme Court of Wisconsin, and the Supreme Court of the United States.
Important posts
Ahead in SCOW
Sign up
Presentence Report — Use / Subsequent to Sentencing
State v. James L. Montroy, 2005 WI App 230 For Montroy: Jay E. Heit; Stephanie L. Finn Issue/Holding: ¶14 Montroy also argues a new PSI is necessary because the inaccurate information will continue to prejudice him in the future. He cites Wis. Admin. Code § DOC 328.27 (Nov. 2002) for examples of the various uses for […]
NGI Procedure – Abandonment of NGI Plea and Necessity of Personal Colloquy
State v. Jennifer F. Francis, 2005 WI App 161 For Francis: Hans P. Koesser Issue: Whether the trial court must engage the defendant in a personal colloquy before allowing an NGI plea, § 971.06(1)(d), to be abandoned. Holding: Because an NGI plea is not a constitutional or otherwise fundamental right, a personal colloquy with the defendant isn’t […]
SVP: Dangerousness, Reduced Showing — Effective Date
State v. Shermell G. Tabor, / State v. Ronald Irvin Ryan, 2005 WI App 107 For Tabor / Ryan: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: Legislative modification of the definition of SVP “dangerousness” (2003 Wis Act 187, §§ 2, 2m, amending §§ 980.01(7) and 980.02(2)(c); reducing the necessary showing from “substantial probability” to mere likelihood of sexual violence) has an effective […]
Sentence Modification: New Factor — TIS-II, Reduced Penalty In Relation to TIS-I Sentence, Not New Factor
State v. Jose A. Trujillo, 2005 WI 45, affirming summary order of court of appeals For Trujillo: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue: Whether the TIS-II reduction of penalty, such that this TIS-I defendant was sentenced to confinement exceeding what would have been the TIS-II maximum, is a “new factor” supporting modification of sentence. Holding: ¶21 We […]
Sentence Modification — New Factor — Assistance to Law Enforcement
State v. John Doe, 2005 WI App 68 For John Doe: Amelia L. Bizzaro (the court file has been ordered sealed, and the caption amended “to shield the defendant’s identity”) Issue/Holding: “(A) defendant’s substantial and important assistance to law enforcement after sentencing may constitute a new factor that the trial court can take into consideration when deciding […]
SVP – Post-Disposition – Discharge Procedure – Probable Cause Determination, Insufficient Showing on Particular Facts
State v. Robert M. Fowler, 2005 WI App 41, PFR filed 3/9/05For Fowler: Randall E. Paulson, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶30 Dr. Harasymiw’s report concludes that Fowler still is a sexually violent person. This was sufficient to support the trial court’s conclusion that it was substantially probable that Fowler would engage in acts of sexual […]
Sentence — Modification (at State’s Behest) — New Factor: Defendant’s Economic Circumstance
State v. Frederick W. Prager, 2005 WI App 95 For Prager: Daniel P. Fay Issue: Whether, six days after original sentencing and imposition of probation, the State’s proffered new factor (that defendant had quitclaimed the jointly owned farm to his wife) supported a modification to an active prison term. Holding: Although the term of probation was […]
Sentencing – Modification — New Factor — General Test
State v. John Doe, 2005 WI App 68 For John Doe: Amelia L. Bizzaro (the court file has been ordered sealed, and the caption amended “to shield the defendant’s identity”) Issue/Holding: ¶6. Thus, sentence modification on the basis of a new factor is a two-step process. Id. First, the defendant must demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that […]
Sentencing – Factors — Guidelines (& Sixth Amendment)
State v. James L. Montroy, 2005 WI App 230 For Montroy: Jay E. Heit; Stephanie L. Finn Issue/Holding: Wisconsin discretionary guideline regime is not governed by the holdings of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), and United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), ¶¶20-24.
Sentencing – Review — Inaccurate Information — Necessity of Trial Court Reliance
State v. James L. Montroy, 2005 WI App 230 For Montroy: Jay E. Heit; Stephanie L. Finn Issue/Holding1: Though information before the sentencing court was indisputably inaccurate, the court took remedial action by ordering that this information be stricken, and thus Montroy can’t satisfy his burden of showing actual reliance on inaccurate information. ¶¶9-11. (State v. […]
On Point is sponsored by Wisconsin State Public Defenders. All content is subject to public disclosure. Comments are moderated. If you have questions about this blog, please email [email protected].
On Point provides information (not legal advice) about important developments in the law. Please note that this information may not be up to date. Viewing this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship with the Wisconsin State Public Defender. Readers should consult an attorney for their legal needs.